Support for the Affordable Care Act

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sits on a panel to answer questions about the Affordable Care Act enrollment on Oct. 25 in San Antonio. (Eric Gay, The Associated Press)

In spite of all the complaints, I, for one, support the Affordable Care Act. Seniors like me now enjoy prescription coverage at less cost. My grandchildren can stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26. Sure, there have been glitches in enrolling in Obamacare, but it should be remembered that change is never easy. It takes time and effort. Medicare and Social Security also went through a difficult time and yet are now liked and enjoyed by many. We should give Obamacare time to work and seek not to repeal or defund it, but make improvements. Universal health insurance is important for our country to embrace. It is not just a privilege for a few, but a right for all Americans.

Carolyn McIntosh, Littleton

This letter was published in the Oct. 30 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

We know the majority of Americans want better insurance plans than what they’ve been getting: highest cost on the planet, among the lowest outcomes in developed world. Everything won’t happen overnight, especially with the troglodytes in the way.

Best,

D

thor

Once again you make a baseless assertion. Once again I’m asking you to prove that we have the lowest outcomes in the developed world. I just ask one thing, that you site a neutral source. And don’t reply with nonsense like the free thinker, toohip, would use.

guest

Ah, the better insurance plan meme. I’ve heard a number of Democratic spokespeople tell us that reason not everyone is being able to keep their plans (that they liked) was because it was substandard. So men are getting improved plans with free mammograms and pap smears, couples over 50 are getting plans with contraception and maternity benefits, and people who are skinny are getting screening and counseling obesity. PS. we don’t have the lowest outcome in the developed world. If you get sick in America you are much more likely to survive than you would in most of the developed world.

Dano2

Why are you hayden on better insurance? What’s in it for you? Besides a few bitcoins from the clowns dumb enough to reward sockpuppets, that is.

Best,

D

Fowler

If I don’t have a Cadillac, I might not want to buy a Cadillac plan, but now I have to buy one. My employee is 60, does she really need maternity coverage and birth control pills? Obviously not, so the costs have to go up. Can I have a high deductible HSA to cover catastrophic events – apparently not since our old plan just got canceled – oh well – just pay more and shut up please! We have to cover Rubbo fatbutt and his smoking diabetic soda habit.

Tbone

Most of us who already have insurance already have those things covered.

primafacie

“Break-in? What break-in?”

“Read my lips.”

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

“You can keep your plan and premiums will be reduced by $2,500.”

The pantheon of presidential whoppers.

But it’s not like no one could see it coming. Mandating that insurers absorb additional risk and liability, and expecting everything to be unaffected, let alone premiums going down, is pure fantasy.

andyandy

My monthly premium is going from $511 to $379 for essentially the same Kaiser plan.

primafacie

That’s great. Not quite a reduction of $2,500 annually, but not chump change either.

Ours is going the other direction, up about 4 percent with higher out-of-pocket and deductible.

andyandy

Was this through the exchange?

We’re all still learning about this, obviously, but that would seem to contradict the numbers I’ve seen on the site.

There are a whole bunch of companies you can choose from there. I just went with Kaiser because I’ve been there for umpteen years, and don’t want the stress of a system.

andyandy

A “system change.”

primafacie

Not through the exchange. But that wasn’t Obama’s claim. He said the act, then a proposal, would lower premiums $2,500 per year as well as provider costs. That hasn’t happened across the board and it’s fantasy that it would have.

Granny

Good question. The people I know, who checked with brokers, or stuck with their current carriers told me they got better deals through the exchange.

Dano2

If you’re having a big sad that Obummer isn’t following thru on his 2500.00 promise, why are you sad at him? Be sad at Congress who took the Republican plan and de-niced it.

Best,

D

guest

Again you make no sense at all. You might want to sign up for English as a second language class.

Guest

And that increase was probably going to happen anyway. But you were able to keep yours right? I’ve kept my plan with a slight increase of $20 a month.

primafacie

Are you my insurance agent? I didn’t recognize you.

Guest

So do you have proof it was “Obama’s fault” your premium increased? How many times did it increase in the past? Was that “Obama’s fault” then also?? Because mine and everyone else I know has always had their premiums increase year after year. This year was one of the lowest for me. And you did keep your same policy, correct? Or afraid to answer a simple question?

peterpi

Guest, you ought to know by now that no bad thing ever happened before Obama was elected president, and no good thing has happened since.

guest

It’s not a question of premiums not going up before (they did). It’s the fact that Obama told us he was going to bend the cost curve and that a typical family of four would save $2500 per year.

He couldn’t have passed the bill — which barely passed — without lying. So, he lied. And it worked until the Administration started to implement the plan and people saw the truth.

Philo99

because it’s being subsidized by the working taxpayers.

Congratulations. You are now a welfare leech.

andyandy

So where are you getting your insurance, smarty-pants, and how’s it working out so far. No room for improvement?

I suggest you learn a little bit about the ACA, which the CBO says will
cut the deficit. Hardly a subsidy by “working taxpayers” while cutting
the deficit, ya think? Don’t worry, I’m still paying plenty. Kaiser Permanente is into me for at least $90,000 at this point, for which I have nothing to show, thankfully, I guess…

Actually, the savings because insurers must now compete with one another in the marketplace, thanks to the Obamacare Exchange.

That, and the requirement that insurance companies now must devote 85% of their revenue to healthcare, as opposed to massive salaries and bonuses, and the other trappings of for-profit health insurance.

It should be less, as it is in most developed countries. We could use about 300 million “welfare leeches,” in order to have a single payer system, which everyone knows is the most cost effective.

Sorry you lost this one. Maybe you can shut down the government, and everything will be fine. Good luck in 2016 when it will be common knowledge how many lies you Obama-haters have told about this law.

Crybaby.

andyandy

I would add that the price differential I mentioned doesn’t include any tax credit or subsidy of any kind.

In other words, you’re wrong.

Sorry.

Tbone

When was this $2500 savings claim made? Was that on glen beck/faux news/rush limbaugh today? That’s the second time I’ve seen a nutter make the claim.

primafacie

Several times during the 2008 campaign, as I recall, while he was making the keep-your-plan pledge.

He should have said that you can keep you same plan unless it fails to meet the minimum standards for conscionable value, in which case the insurance companies will be prohibited from ripping you off, and will have to offer you something better.

It might be more expensive. But you will be less likely to die on the street.

Tbone

That would have involved a leader using nuance.

As we’ve seen, the public doesn’t do nuance.

guest

Half truth? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

andyandy

No, not in this case.

The insurance companies are dropping plans which underinsure people, and which are too pathetic to be viable when a marketplace offers people better alternatives.

I see your multiple name changes haven’t cured your issues with snarkiness, Goose.

andyandy

Still waiting for that Republican plan.

Oh, I almost forgot. Obamacare is a Republican plan.

Suz b

Obviously you are a low-information voter. If you don’t watch/listen to some of the above, you are among the brain-washed. Mass Media has crossed the boundaries into propaganda. These last 2 months they are finally doing some real reporting.

Tbone

DERP!

Fowler

Totally unfair showing actual video of Obama making that promise Prima! That was NOT Obama. That was republicans wearing Obama masks to make him look bad in the future when the promise he never made would fail to come true. Totally planned by Bush Cheney Rove nazi teabaggers! Stop showings videos of the non-Obama!

Tbone

Aw, look at poor little fouler. Mad that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about so he has to strut around trying to hide it. It’s the truck nutz of arguments.

Guest

And you leave out your hero:

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Mr. Bush told Polish television. “For those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”

primafacie

You must have me confused with someone else.

Guest

No you named other presidents, but left out the whopper of whoppers which resulted in two wars andtrillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

primafacie

I left out a lot of presidential whoppers. This makes George W. Bush my “hero”?

Guest

Just wondering why you intentionally left out baby Bush?
So??? Now you sound like goodspkr “guest”!

primafacie

I thought the others were funnier. Sue me.

Guest

Yes, I agree, baby Bush’s was NOT funny to the many lives that were lost or forever changed for the worst! But let’s pick on Obama, even though he’s trying to help millions of people without insurance, a way to obtain it to make their quality of life better.

primafacie

I bring what I bring.

guest

I believe that is called robbing Peter to pay Paul. And Peter is young, healthy but short of cash.

Granny

Great point, Guest. Not at all funny to me. I not only lost my job at age 59, but my 401k also took a nose dive, which meant recouping losses at a time when I could no longer contribute due to a job loss.
Happily via savings, wise investing on my own, and applying my extensive experience and higher education to fill in the gaps with near minimum-wage jobs, I’ve managed to stay afloat. This is more than I can say for many seniors, who lost their homes, and could no longer afford coverage at a time of life when it’s most needed.
President Obama cares enough to grant affordable coverage to the many people impoverished by ongoing Republican policies. On the other hand, Republicans continue to cater to corporate interests, including the insurance lobby.
Bottom line: there is no excuse for sacrificing American lives in the name of the bottom line.

Guest

Good for you Granny. I also know many seniors who didn’t fare so well when they lost their jobs and insurance, or were booted off their plans after some serious health issues. Republicans don’t want this to work because it’s “Obama” and Democrats forging through with this. They’ve never tried to address this problem and only seek to obstruct….just like they did with “Hillarycare”.
Again, good for you Granny!!

andyandy

These are all just abstractions to Republicans, Granny, who don’t bother to consider the real impacts their ideas have on real human beings.

My Republican brother just got laid off at age 55. He’d be screwed if it weren’t for Obama, even though he’ll never admit it.

Fowler

I’ll be happy when my insurance premium rates go down by $2,500 as promised. I’m bummed however that the insurance plan I had and was told I could keep was cancelled about a month ago due to Obamacare. Then I noticed all my premium options went up by about 17%. So far I’m less than impressed, but really can’t find an alternative since the Obamacare website is not functioning. But I’m confident Barry’s Magic Beans will make everything great!

peterpi

Who cancelled your insurance? Your employer? Your insuror? What was the precise reason they gave?

guest

Probably that the plan didn’t meet what is required by Obamacare (see my comment about maternity benefits, etc). Part of the reason that health care is so expensive is that government (it has been the state government up to now) keeps putting in mandates that all insurance plans must meet. Obamacare added a bunch of them.

Tbone

Health insurance, you mean.

Fowler

exactly

Tbone

It obviously never happened.

Fowler

I say you are a liar – try running small business with employees and see how you like shopping for insurance. I say you are a fraud and liar who obviously has things handed to you b y someone else.

Tbone

Most of them already do that. And on the state exchange, not on the federal one, because they can’t.

Fowler

How would you know? Are you an employer paying someone else’s health insurance? Have you tried to get a quote as a small business owner? Don’t lie now.

andyandy

Yes, I have. I hated it. I buy my insurance as a small business.

The exchange just saved me a bunch of money.

You hate Obama so much that you don’t want to admit he just made your life better.

Swallow your pride. Accept the improvements. You’ll get over it.

Fowler

Made my life better by making my overhead more expensive – brilliant. But this discourse did reveal one good thing – you admit that employers cancelling their employees’ health insurance is the desired outcome of Obamacare. I’m sure WalMart thanks you, and until about a week ago, Obamacare supporters were castigating big business for cutting hours and laying people off due to Obamacare – now you say it’s the smart thing to do. Thanks!

Your employee doesn’t depend on you for insurance anymore. She can get it at the exchange for a lot less.

toohip

Ever note that this straw man argument about employers reducing their employees due to increase in mandatory health care costs or that employers are reducing full time employees to part time employees so they can avoid the mandatory health care coverage. . . . is a “business decision” which is code for “it reduces my profits.”

What happened to the “cost of doing business?” I guess that too. . is “Obama’s fault!”

Fowler

The “cost of doing business” just went up significantly due to Obamacare – that’s the point Einstein.

andyandy

No it didn’t. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

toohip

Not true (stop watching someone’s else’s TV on Fox News!) The “cost of doing business” is called “what the market can bear”. . remember. . economics 101? So if the gubmint passes a law that says businesses over so many employees must provide a health insurance plan, or that as a business you have to pay taxes, can’t discriminate, etc. etc. . that’s called “doing business.” I get so tired of hearing the Repubs whine about some business owner who had to cut employees because he had to pay health care benefits or a business that changed their full time employees to part time to “evade” the law. . . as some personal crisis. It’s a personal CHOICE based on GREED! If you can’t afford to conduct business under the laws of this great land. . get out of business. The first people to tell you this will be fiscal responsible Republicans. Stop the lies. Stop the rhetoric. Stop being mean spirited to people less fortunate than you. Do what Jesus would do!

Fowler

Exactly why businesses do precisely what you advocate – they fire people here, shut down factories and move their workforce offshore – if the government makes it too expensive to produce here the work goes elsewhere. Adding costs endlessly through new mandates and taxes on business has a tipping point – profits are often narrow margins – so watch out what you wish for. The Goose that lays the golden egg eventually makes its nest somewhere more affordable – simple economics. By the way, I’m not Republican either.

Tbone

Hmmm….it’s hard not to dismiss your entire post as a blatant lie, when the Colorado exchange website is working fine.Why would you be on the website for the federal exchange?

At least you were relatively modest, and only lied about a 17% increase, not 50%, for instance.

And if the website is supposedly broken, how do you know you’re looking at a 17% increase, anyways?

Liar. At least make them believable. Like, you know, republicans are fiscal conservatives or something.

andyandy

That’s right, bone. The federal site directs you to the Colorado site. Fowler has obviously never seen either one.

Fowler

You are an absolute liar. I have checked both out. On the Colorado site you can determine if you get any tax credits but you have to pay your employee less than $50,000 per year. we pay more so the calculator didn’t even apply. There were no savings over the other costs of the small business plan we pay for our employee because we pay her too much. Great plan.

andyandy

Duh. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

No, people making $50,000 aren’t hurting, and shouldn’t get tax credits.

Cry me a freaking river. Sounds like a tax increase is what you need.

Fowler

I like your thinking! Cut off my employee’s insurance, force her onto government insurance and pay her less! You sound like Sam Walton’s ghost. Who knew that was Obama’s plan? What, are you suddenly one of the Koch brothers? Talk about hypocrisy.

andyandy

No, take the money you’re paying for her insurance, and give it to her directly. Let her buy her own from the exchange. You’ll both be better off.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. And your reading skills leave a lot to be desired.

Fowler

A “blatant lie” because I stated the truth? Here’s EXACTLY what the state website said: “Based on the information entered, you would not eligible to recieve a tax credit.The average wage of your employees is too high; the average annual wage must be less than $50,000, your average annual wage is $74,000.” Since I get no credit for my one employee (whose insurance my partner and I paid for) there is no benefit under the Obamacare/state plan. We just have to eat it or make her pay more of her insurance costs, or pay her less. The 17% increase comes from my insurance agent not the website – we have limited options for insurance on the western slope, and the state exchange decided the Glenwood to Rifle area should be included in the “resort” insurance market since we’re 40 miles from Aspen – though most of us are modest wage earners by comparison. You call me a liar – well screw you. You know nothing about me, or how I have tried to do the responsible thing for 20 years and provide insurance and other benefits for my employees. Your attitude is typical “hand over your money” arrogance by somebody who feels entitled and has probably never signed a payroll check or met a small business budget in his life. I’m not a liar and your attitude and arrogance is exactly why the hard workers in society hate your types.

Tbone

Wait, so you’ve provided insurance for your supposed one employee for years now….and you’ve obviously shopped around for that…..all the sudden it’s Obama’s fault that you have to look for insurance?

How does that work? It’s Obama’s fault that you have to do something you’ve done for a long time now? Supposedly?

And now you’re suddenly saying the website works. Huh.

And all the sudden, you expect a handout from the gubmint for doing what you have always done. Supposedly. How much subsidy did you get before the ACA passed for offering your employee insurance?

And if you don’t like what the exchange offers – shop on the private market. Like you always have. Supposedly.

So basically you’re doing all the same things you’ve always done, and it’s Obama’s fault.

Fowler

Yep – and the prices keep going up, despite the promise that they would go down if we passed Obamacare, our current high deductible HSA policy is cancelled because it doesn’t meet the Obamacare mandates for coverage, the Obamacare tax credits don’t apply because we pay our employee too much – so yes, I agree with you – things just keep getting worse from a health insurance cost perspective, and nothing Obama promised would happen has happened. As I said previously, if costs really did go down $2,500 per year and we could keep our current policy then I’d be convinced. Your “argument” just proved my point, although I think you didn’t intend that. Yes, I’m “doing all the things I did before” and paying more – and you define that as some kind of success? Really bizarre defense of your Obamacare plan….

Tbone

In other words, you were providing junk insurance to your employee and it’s obama’s fault that you have to pay for real insurance rather than sticking your employee with the bill.

Why is it news, all the sudden, that real insurance costs more than junk insurance?

Fowler

“junk insurance”? What the hell do you know about it? Even with the high deductible HSA, the premium was $800 per month just for her and $1,200 for my family and me – I suppose the logical thing was to just say to heck with it – we don’t offer insurance – tough. But I was a responsible and caring employer who tried to provide reasonable coverage. My employee is 60 and doesn’t need maternity care – hellooo. But Obamacare has not helped – in fact it’s hurt. So your point is? I detect a strong smell of entitlement from you…employers are just money bags to squeeze until the teat runs dry and the cow dies – then you whine about having no more milk.

Tbone

You paid $800/mo for junk insurance?

Well guess what? On the state exchange website, a 60 year old can get a policy for $500 a month that actually covers things.

Own goal! Nice.

AS far as entitlement – who is the one here asking for a gubmint handout? Sure isn’t this guy.

Fowler

You are not using the resort non-msa rates. I never asked for a government handout. I was promised my rates would go Down and I could keep my current policy. Neither is true.

Tbone

The state exchange website lists a family of 4 plan on the western slope with a $1500 deductible for less than $1000 per month.

So guess what? That adds up to about a $2500 yearly saving for fouler. Own goal.

Fowler

You need to look under resort non-msa for the rate. There is nothing under $900 and that is for an individual silver plan. You’re not using the right information.

andyandy

Give your employee the money instead if insurance, and let her shop as an individual on the exchange. Problem solved.

Is this too complicated for you?

Fowler

It still costs her more on the exchange. What happened to I can keep my policy if I want? Are you saying that i should cut off my employee’s insurance which is not taxable as income, pay the premium as salary which is taxable as income, and pay the employer’s FICA tax on the added income? Another person who has never run a business giving me advice. Plus, I thought not paying health benefits was baaad.

andyandy

I’ve run a business and/or been self-employed all my life, d**khead. The last time I got a W-2 was in 1989. Kiss my hump. Congratulations on running a business. I know other businessmen who still have manners. Please work on that.

You’re right about the tax implications. That should enter into your decision. Based on what I’ve seen, you’ll probably be better off if you follow my advice. And she’ll get to choose her own insurance, without your meddling around in her affairs.

There is no intrinsic link between employment and healthcare. It was an artificial construct to avoid wage controls in WWII.

Fowler

I don’t believe you for a minute – you’re a taker not a maker. No one who ever ran a small business would be as stupid as you for than one business cycle.

johnrpack

My monthly premium is going up about $35 (about 7%).
That may or may not be worth it. Only time will tell. But one thing it means for certain is that I’ll be spending $35 fewer dollars on other goods and services each month. Are American businesses ready to take the hit?

toohip

(no mention if john got a subsidy, but doubt it since most “independent/libertarians” are po folk – or what additional benefits john’s new “Obamacare” policy will provide him. . but it does cost him 7% more that’s the bottom line for most single issue voters)

peterpi

You know that happened because of Obama, how?

johnrpack

Obama plus all other factors… Obamacare is probably only 5 of the 7%.

toohip

Fowler do you “live” on the basis of promises you hear? You seem smarter than this, but yet you hold up the promises of elected leaders as proof, gubmint doens’t work.
This straw man argument about the Kenyan President’s promise to keep the coverage you got has been covered over and over, yet, like Goebbels strategy of keep repeating it, it’s not sticking to the wall. First of all no insurance company can immediately cancel your policy they have to give you a 90 day notice, and during that 90 days you can sign up for private health care coverage through the healthcare.gov which is/will be working.
Second if you had the same coverage in 2010 you would of been grandfathered in, even if the health care coverage wasn’t adequate per the LAW.
Third, if you are one of those that’s been changing health care plans to get the best and cheapest deal, your health care plan obviously didn’t meet the LAW (ACA) and was considered inadequate or illegal under the law. (no YOU don’t get to decide what’s “adequate” the LAW does. . laws kind of work that way!).
Fourth, you get to choose from the private, for-profit health care ins. market via the support of your socialist gubmint an “affordable” health care plan that meets the LAW. Yes, it might be more coverage than you want, or can afford, but that’s the. . LAW. If you still reject the cost or the “excessive coverage” (is that an oxymoron?) then you can simply pay the little “fine” each year and go on the high-risk public dole of emergency room care that us tax payers have to pay for your refusal to have . . PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. . you know the idea the Republicans and Heritage Foundation floated long ago?

Stop repeating the Fox News talking points, and what you hear on TV, and seek the truth. Its’ all right here provide by your gubmint. . and the LAW.

Fowler

“Fowler do you “live” on the basis of promises you hear? You seem
smarter than this, but yet you hold up the promises of elected leaders
as proof, gubmint doens’t work.” You’re right. Obama IS a liar and it was foolish of me to believe him.

toohip

I’m just SURE you did! ;o)

Fowler

I forgot mention that I don’t watch or have TV, that’s for the stupid people who can’t think for themselves.

toohip

That explains a lot! so. . . where did you ever get this notion that Obama said you could keep the health care you got? someone tell you at the gym?

Fowler

It’s called reading. You should try it instead of listening to your masters at MSNBC.

thor

Let’s put to rest that health care, like privacy, is a “right.”

andyandy

Life, like liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights.

You want to put those ones to rest, too?

guest

Using your logic, the government owes me $100 million because that is what I need for the pursuit of happiness.

Dano2

That’s not logic, that’s a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the premise – a logical fallacy. Screeching to a halt, crashing into the clown car.

Best,

D

toohip

anything to make you happy, guest! but really, haven’t we paid enough to make you happy?

thor

We pay out of the ears for liberal policies. Does that make you happy?

Tbone

Right, and no conservative policy has ever cost anything ever, in the history of muricah.

GMAFB.

thor

Muricah? Can’t find that word in the dictionary. Or are you being clever again (fail).

Granny

We pay out of the ears for Republican policies: two wars, a prescription plan that was never funded nor even included in the budget handed off to our current administration. Then there were the tax cuts, and the continuation of subsidies of most benefit to our nation’s wealthiest. Add Republican austerity to the mix to stint opportunity for economic growth. But surely you know this.

toohip

Free-thinker gets his talking points from Faux News! It’s called good government, thor, taking care of it’s people. . just like they care care of the corporations and the rich. Maybe these po’ folk will trickle it “up” to you someday in the form of getting off “entitlements” and get a reasonable paying job? Try not to generalize so much. . . use that free-thinking mind and say something more creative.

thor

Being a free thinker beats being a no-thinker any day. So, try free thinking, you might be able to share cogent thoughts once in a while.

johnrpack

That depends. What do you believe I am required to provide you in order for you to enjoy life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness?

andyandy

I believe healthcare is a right. I’m a single payer guy.

Sorry, I don’t accept your pathetic victimhood meme.

Poor, poor John.

johnrpack

Is food a right? Does the farmer owe you what he grows?

Is the doctor your slave? Do you have a right to his labor and skill?

toohip

(only if liberty and pursuit of happiness has a cost. . to tax payers) if gubmint provides it. then it “costs!”

thor

True.

thor

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are on the list. Privacy and health care are not.

Tbone

No, they’re in the first 10 amendments to the constitution instead. Privacy at least.

Tbone

So, since you’re a real pro-lifer, you believe that health care providers can let people die for no reason? Just because?

andyandy

No, that’s the job of the for-profit health insurance company.

I don’t feel like delving into religion right now, but thanks for the bait.

You are entitled to the labor and skills of your doctor, hospital, and pharmacist — just as the plantation owner of the early 1800’s South was entitled to the labor and skills of his people.

Many of us reject the idea that we have the right to anything produced by someone else — whether taken directly or stolen via taxation.

toohip

Wow! (says Ayn Rand!. . who also accepted SS which she also reviled and said was not a right)
So thor, so people have a right not to die due to lack of basic health care, like the 50,000 who die every year due to lack of health care? I realize you’re a card-carrying member of the mean-spirited party, but are you really, that uncaring? Is this a free-thinker’s thought. . that people don’t have a right to basic health care?

Tbone

That is the free-thinker’s thought. That we can just let people die, because ayn rand told the free thinkers to think that thought.

johnrpack

Let’s think about this a second…

Basic health care would include keeping me alive, right? So I have a fundamental right to a cure for Chronic Lymphatic Lukemia? So the fact that no such cure has been invented means my basic rights have been violated?

What if the future inventor of the cure gives up because Obamacare isn’t willing to pay him enough to keep him in this line of work? What happened to my rights then? Medical school enrollments are way down, so I guarantee we’ve lost some of the best and brightest already.

SS (Social Security) is for morons. A full-time minimum wage worker would have nearly three-quarters of a million dollars if they invested that same amount at average stock market gains over 40 years. Instead, they’ll a pittance that can’t even cover food costs. That’s called robbery, incompetance, and cruelty.

Instead of trying to get an inefficient, incompetent government to produce what it never has and never will, it’s time to let people control their own resources. Freedom… what a concept! Maybe we should try letting people buy whatever insurance policy they want — and whatever health care they way. Let’s remove employers from the equation.

Guest

Your first two paragraphs are hogwash and worse.
Your second is also. One calculator I found, shows that to accumulate $750,000 over 40 years, a person would have to invest $214.84 and earn 8%. Now where can a person making minimum wage come up with $214.84 per month to save? After rent, food, utilities, HEALTH INSURANCE, etc.?
Looks to me like you are the moron!

peterpi

Or earn 8%.

johnrpack

The average return of mutual funds over the life of the stock market is nearly 13%. If I take a $7.25/hour wage for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks in a year, that gives a monthly salary of $1,256.67. The employee pays 6.5% plus the employer pays another 6.5% (which he’d be just as happy to give directly to the employee and counts as if he’d done just that) for a $163.37 contribution per month. At just 10% interest over 40 years, that results in a future value of $1,033,144. At Colorado’s minimum wage, that jumps to $1.1 million.

Even at 8%, it’s $570,000. How many of our poorest can afford to give up a that kind of money in exchange for a tiny SS payment? (Keep in mind that that money could fund a $50,000/year income forever!)

But, let’s get a grip on reality, no one works for minimum wage for 40 years. That’s the province of those who don’t speak English and high school students. Everyone else moves on to much better. The average American makes around $50K per year. Social Security costs the average American $1.9 million EACH. That’s the cost of gigantic government meddling in our lives.

I’m over 50 now, but I would be happy to surrender all claims to SS in exchange for just my 6.5% on future wages — SS can continue to collect the employer match! Anyone with any financial savvy knows that would be a spectacular deal for me.

You might want to think twice before challenging someone whose degrees all involve financial math and who works for an insurance company…

Guest

Am I supposed to be impressed by your “degrees all involve financial math”? I’m not.
“and who works for an insurance company…” Explains why you’re against Obamacare.
But let’s come down from your arrogant high horse and look at the real world the rest of us live in. From the “Street”:

TheStreet) — The average investor’s 20 year annualized
return is astounding simply because of how awful it was.
According to an analysis by Dalbar, the average investor
earned 2.1% over the twenty year period ended Dec. 31, 2011.

And you still don’t account for real world expenses like rent,utilities, clothing, HEALTHCARE, etc. and show where a person earning 12 grand can still come up with $163 to invest. Oh, and are children involved?

johnrpack

I understand that the stock market has been less stellar over the past decade. However, for those not dumb enough to sell when the market was down (sell cheap; buy high), we’ve still been over 5% on the decade — and will undoubtedly return to much better as the economy recovers (as long as the government can avoid another stimulus of campaign donors).

show where a person earning 12 grand can still come up with $163 to invest.

The $163 is the money already taken from the person’s paycheck by Social Security. It’s the money they’d have if we got rid of that destructive leech. That’s right, Granny, your social security is ripping off the poorest members of our society and costing the average American $1.9 million apiece — because you voted for politicians that wasted every penny of the your own social security “donations.” They invested your money in safety net programs that have a return on investment of -100% (plus the national debt to boot).

Guest

Have any sources to back up your claims? I’m especially interested in “social security is ripping off the poorest members of our society and costing the average American $1.9 million apiece”.

johnrpack

You can do the calculation yourself. It’s not difficult. See my post that’s three upstream from here..

I’d encourage everyone reading here to remember your outrage when you received your first paycheck and discovered it was way less than you expected. That’s what Social Security has stolen from you — for year after year after year.

Guest

And forgot to mention, the amount would be $78 (employee half) as the percentage is 6.2%, not 6.5. And I wouldn’t be so sure that employers would “be just as happy to give directly to the employee and counts as if he’d done just that)”. But I wouldn’t want to find out. Because benefits have been taken away all the time. Pensions, health care, just to name a couple. What would stop them from contributing their share?

Guest

Last line should read “What would stop them from NOT contributing their share?

johnrpack

Well, in that mythical future where Social Security is repealed, I’d have the law handling the repeal also mandate that employers include their “match” in employees salaries. But, let’s face it, that’s politically unfeasible.

Guest

Can’t find anything on your claim that SS costs every American $1.9 million apiece…..but did find this:

Just as Food Stamps stimulate the economy by creating about $1.80 of economic activity for every dollar of Food Stamps spent, Social Security pumps up job-generating and business activity by about $2 for every dollar recipients
spend. This is according to a new study by the AARP:

A new report by the AARP Public Policy Institute,
“Social Security’s Impact on the National Economy,” found that Social Security adds more than $1 trillion to the U.S. economy each year. People who receive Social Security benefits are not saving that money for a rainy day. They’re spending it on goods and services — pumping it back into the economy. We have to
remember that the typical older American has an income of about $22,000 a year, and Social Security accounts for about half of a typical older family’s income.

I especially like the fact that SS recipients pump it back to the economy. Unlike tax breaks to the rich who simply sock it away or put it in offshore hidden accounts!

johnrpack

AARP is among the biggest fans of SS — since their members are those who paid in a lot less than they expect to get out. That’s not true for those who are less than 55, however.

As for the $1.9 million, feel free to run the future value calculations yourself for the SS % taken from a $50K annual salary invested at 10% over 40 years.

As for the impact on the economy, that’s a shell game. If you take a dollar from me and give it to someone else, the net economic impact is zero. I spend less. The other guy spends more.

The problem is that — while the $$$ is in transit in government administration — the money changes hands less often. That’s why the multiplier for government money is 2.6 while entrepreneurial money is over 7. In other words, if I open a small business today, every dollar I spend adds $7 to the economy (because the person I give it to will give it to the next person and so on). If the government creates a new program that spends a dollar, the impact is only $2.60. Taxes slow the exchange down — so ultimately even though the dollars spent are the same, the speed of commerce is slower.

Of course, more important than the speed is the value produced. If I give Home Depot $400 for shelves to store my inventory, I’ll still be using those shelves 10 years from now. Those are valuable, productive assets with durable value. if the government spends $400, it hasn’t even got an entire hammer. In the long run, the absence of durable value in government enterprise means the value of the government $$$ is very, very low.

Guest

I go back to my source of “the average investor” made 2.1%. And you arrogantly call them “stupid”. And of course you don’t like any source that goes against your ideaology.
And your shell game is in your mind. Money is pumped into the economy. Period. And don’t forget they paid into it. But it soothes you righties to believe “they’re taking away from me” and I want to throw my tantrum to make me feel better!!

The way to make less was to buy high and sell low (during the down period on that chart). If you sold stock in Feb 2009, you lost big time. If you have so little faith in the economy as to sell low, you have no business investing in stocks to begin with.

I’m sure a lot of government-educated people were below average — since finance is a subject rarely covered in public school. But for anyone who has any basic amount of training — one knows to sell when fundamentals are bad, but to hold (or even buy) when the market drops to take advantage of the rebound.

By the way, if you bought in Feb 2009, then your return from then until March 2013 would have been 17.88%. Those of us who invest monthly (e.g., 401k paycheck deduction) have some of each return in the mix. My own return over the decade was close to 11% (principally because I kept my investments and invested more and more over the decade — not because I’m a Warren Buffet-like investor). There are lots of funds with similar performance over the decade.

Money is pumped into the economy. Period.

Precisely the attitude that’s earned us a $17 trillion debt. I had an economics professor who argued that it didn’t matter whether one spent $500,000 on a home or a roll on the roulette wheel. “The economic stimulus is the same.” But he was dead wrong. In one case, an asset that will serve my family (or others) for decades has been created. It will likely retain or increase in value. The other actually causes people to waste their time and effort on an exchange with no lasting value — ultimately, it destroys resources. The momentary impact may be the same, but the long-term stimulus could be more different.

Guest

So why are you working for someone and not in the news as an equal to Warren Buffet??
And don’t buy your “analogy” of the roulette wheel. Folks are spending their SS check on basics, like food, clothing, etc.
But I guess an elite “person” like you doesn’t understand the lowly person that you arrogantly dismiss. You’re really a pathetic perfect example of what’s wrong with you teabaggers!!
The end!

johnrpack

I realize you’re misinterpreting me intentionally, but I did not suggest ways in which SS recipients were spending their money. I compare two extreme uses of money to illustrate the value behind various economic stimuli.

Tbone

“Obamacare” doesn’t pay inventors, Mrs. Rand.

Glad to have cleared that up.

Granny

I’ll simply address just one of your numerous fallacies. Researchers do not depend on Obamacare for funding. They rely on the government funding that Republicans have cut under the sequester.

Guest

Yeah, they look for any way to hold a “hostage”. Don’t want to pay me? I won’t continue research! It’s the “republican teaparty” way!
But you’re right about the funding.

johnrpack

You do realize that the sequester was a bipartisan agreement, right?

You understand that potential profits dictate how much companies spend researching new products?

Apparently, 44% of the doctors in liberal New York aren’t going to accept subsidized Obamacare patients (and another 33% are considering following suit).

Eventually, I hope the government figures out that it can’t repeal the laws of supply and demand.

peterpi

I wish people would drop the “Ayn Rand received Soc. Sec.” arguments.
She paid in, whether she wanted to or not, so she was entitled to receive those benefits. And, some biographers say that, near the end of her life, she was near destitute, very ill, and her relatives persuaded her to take SS, so that she would have some kind of income. IOW, until those relatives came along, she was resigned to her fate.
I loathe Ayn Rand’s “supremacy of the (correct) individual” philosophy, her near-worship of powerful businessmen with no consideration to the workers who made them that way, but pouncing on her use of Social Security is just plain mean and stupid.

Tbone

NO, it’s not. It’s pointing out the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the so-called libertarian set.

peterpi

That’s so noble of you, sacrificing her for the sake of the cause.

guest

I have to agree with you. We keep seeing rich Democrats telling Obama to raise their taxes. Now there is nothing that says they have to take all the deductions they are entitled to or that they can’t just make a donation to the government. So I guess the rich liberals are hypocrites and dishonest too.

peterpi

I wasn’t accusing Rand of hypocrisy. I was saying it’s stupid and insensitive to criticize her for her family or her trustee to arrange for her to receive Social Security and Medicare as she was dying and impoverished.
What that has to do with your monomania about wealthy liberals, I have no idea.

peterpi

Weird: My reply to you disappeared.

peterpi

I wrote a reply to you, but it disappeared.

peterpi

I posted a reply, but the Denver Post is rejecting it.

Granny

She used her married name in applying for SS and Medicare, so people wouldn’t catch her.

StillUndecided

If the Affordable Care Act was nicknamed “Bushcare” because George Bush was responsible for it, would all of the current supporters still be defending it as vigorously as they do now? Conversely, would the current critics still be deriding it? Other than the desperately needed elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions, I see little else in this law that is good. I don’t think that anyone who looks at it objectively will either. I do agree with Ms. McIntosh that help with prescriptions is good too. 26-year old adults, however, should not still be depending on their parents.

andyandy

Straw man. Even thought it’s a good question.

The answer to you question is that most of the people who support Obamacare, like me, would have preferred single-payer, and are very disappointed to have to settle for what we got.

We didn’t even get the public option.

There is good in the law though, more than you see. Limiting the “overhead” (pound of flesh) for the for-profit health insurance company is just one example. Expanding Medicaid is another. We’re still learning about this.

And don’t forget that the whole model was proposed by the Heritage Foundation, endorsed by Nixon, Gingrich, and Romney (before the black guy showed up) and was considered a Republican idea until; you-know-who signed on.

So let’s be clear about where the “party before country” sentiment comes from. It comes from people who despise Barack Obama for who he is, not for what he does.

StillUndecided

Andy^2,
You and I are in complete agreement on one subject. I think single-payer is the answer too. I would go even further and have government-run clinics and hospitals to actually provide care.

We disagree on the President though. I, and many like me, voted for Barack Obama in 2008. We believed him when he made his initial promises. He lost our support when he failed to keep his promises. Now that we see almost daily scandals, we have learned that he is as bad, or worse, than any politician that came before him.

johnrpack

Ditto for those who despised Bush merely because he was Republican…

But it’s fine to despise him for torture, undeclared/illegal wars, doubling the debt, and crippling our economy.

By the same token, it’s fine to despise Obama for Obamacare, drones, failing to end wars, doubling our debt, and crippling our economy.

Dano2

doubling our debt,

It’s also fine to despise the shills who peddle these falsehoods to unwitting rubes.

But yes, drones and Gitmo (and not ‘failing to end wars’) are issues.

Best,

D

johnrpack

We’ve been through the numbers before. Bush’s budgets (2002 – 2009) doubled the national debt. Obama (2010 onward) is on pace to double the debt. The numbers aren’t my opinion; they’re facts.

My opinon is that both of these presidents have taken us in a bad direction — and that the former needs to be arrested and tried for war crimes.

guest

So you are okay with Obama ordering drone strikes that have targeted and killed American citizens including a 16 year old American?

I despised Bush because he was a moron. The torturing, illegal wars, doubling the debt, crippling the economy happened on his watch, and for what he gets to take blame for.
I loved Eisenhower because WAS a real Republican. (and who would be a Democrat today based on Republican party values. . then)
I don’t like Obama not because of drones, but because he lacks the spine and courage to stand up to the obstructionist, anti-American Republicans who keep dragging this country down and backward, either because of their greed and loathing of unlike themselves, or because he’s the black guy in the white house.

primafacie

The last poll I saw on full-blown socialized medicine — or “single payer,” if that’s your preferred euphemism — was 17 percent in favor. Hardly “most.”

And, as I noted before, the Heritage proposal included some elements of what ended up in Obamacare, but not all, and Heritage does not now and never did endorse Obamacare.

But since you’re joining Dano in a silly “black guy” argument, you’ve damaged any credibility your argument may have had beyond recognition.

toohip

I believe there was a minority opinion against slavery at one point as well, but then we progressed as a nation and that’s what changes public opinion. . it’s called knowledge and progress. And right now you party is not doing well here! For many in your party it IS . . about the black guy in the white house!

Tbone

17%? Yea, going to have to ask for a source on that.

peterpi

Gawd, “socialized medicine”, LOL
Phrase it that way, and I’m surprised 17% said yes.
I bet if you ran a poll asking if food processors should continue to add hydrogen hydroxide to apple sauce, you’d get a far higher negative response than if you asked whether they could add water to aid processing.
Polls can be manipulated.
The socialists are coming, the socialists are coming, and they’re after your SUV, your golf clubs, your putting-green lawn, and your doctor!!!

toohip

andy is one of those 54% who when polled said they don’t like Obama care. . . because it does’t go far enough. They want a public option, and he’s a member of a growing 16% of Americans who want something better.
While we know this is all about politics more than mean-spiritedness we can’t forget that much of what’s in ACA now, was an idea of the right, and even implemented by the last Republican presidential candidate, and for which the election was decided on whether Obamacare was good law.

andy is dead on, this is more about Obama than it is what’s best for the American people. Let’s get back to dealing with facts and realities.

guest

And the CBO figured you could cover everyone with a pre-existing condition for approximately $6 billion per year.

Tbone

….and your point is?

guest

Still said: “Other than the desperately needed elimination of pre-existing conditions
exclusions, I see little else in this law that is good”

So it is just like government to come up with a multiple trillion dollar solution to at $60 billion problem.

Tbone

Dude, you’re making no sense whatsoever. First, how do we pay for covering everyone with a pre-existing condition? Second, how does that help people afford health care?

And where did you pull out “multiple trillion dollar solution” from? The ACA saves money.

guest

You really don’t believe that do you?

“the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.” Forbes

This works out to an increase per family of four of $7,450. And for many families the cost is greater because it also redistributes money from the young and healthy to the old and sick.

Tbone

Sorry, but it just does not work that way. Link to Forbes?

I’ll go out on a limb and say they didn’t include how much the aca saves saves, because it would debunk their dishonest argument. And of course we will spend, because there will be another 50 million people in the system. How is this even news?

guest

ACA will not save a penny.

You can’t insure an addition 30 million people, have preventive care covered with no copay, remove any lifetime limits from the amount of care, and cover people who have preexisting conditions and save money and maintain the level of care with no increase in cost. If you believe you can, I’ve got a great investment opportunity for you.

Tbone

Sure. That must be why it’s projected to reduce the deficit.

guest

Not anymore.

“Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period.”

And of course this increases the deficit only by $109 billion by taking $711 billion out of Medicare and increasing taxes by $569 billion.

You may not know this, but when medicare was first started in 1967 they projected the cost of Medicare would increase by 617% by 1990. In actuality it came in at an increase of 6110%.

Tbone

You idiot. HR6079 is the freaking “repeal of Obamacare” act!!!!!!

Of course if you repeal obamacare it’s savings are going to go away!

I can’t freaking believe how stupid that was.

Tbone

Provide the link to forbes so I can debunk that ridiculous assertion. First of all, how much would health care costs increase in the absence of Obamcare? A $600 billion increase over 10 years isn’t much. Second, $7450 over 10 years isn’t much – less than previous, when people are seeing their costs go up 10% + per year.

Third, how does 600 billion become multiple trillions? I know you’re bad at math, but come on.

Fourth, how many new credits will there be as a result of the ACA? I’ll go out on a limb and say those were neglected.

Seriously – I just blew a bunch of holes all over your argument with the slightest bit of common sense applied.

Provide the link.

guest

Take the quote and google it (an easy way to find something online). It isn’t a $621 billion increase over that time. It’s a $621 billion increase ABOVE what Americans would have spent without the law.

Tbone

Facepalm.

At some point, you should be embarrassed. Not to mention the fallacies I pointed out above, stop and think a little. When you’ve got another 30 million in the system, doesn’t it perhaps make sense that overall costs will go up? I mean, how is this even news?

Not to mention, those costs will mostly be covered by insurance companies and the newly enrolled. Sorry, but it’s a complete lie to say the average family will spend $7450 more over 10 years. Dudebro doesn’t even take present worth into account.

Just. Plain. Stupid.

guest

Are you serious? You just told me ACA would lower costs and now you say of course costs will increase.

I guess Ann Coulter is right.

Tbone

Ah. You don’t understand the difference between individual costs and overall, national costs, or the new credits applied as a result of the aca. Or how it will reduce the GROWTH in spending. Of course costs will increase. You’ve heard of inflation, perhaps?

And guess what? Since you’re too cowardly to provide a link, I took the initiative of finding it on my own. Turns out that pretty much everyone on the internet already pointed out how wrong and dishonest the forbes article is. So I’ll rest my case on that.

Seriously, the dude has 7 updates to his post trying to defend his idiocy. You should be embarrassed. The American Enterprise Institute? Seriously? Might as well quote glen beck.

guest

It will reduce the growth in spending by IPAB in Medicare. Now why don’t you tell me how it will reduce the cost in spending elsewhere. Where does Obama bend the curve?

Tbone

Why don’t you just read the actual CBO report on the ACA, not the “repeal of obamacare” cbo report, moron.

guest

Please, explain to me how Obamacare bends the cost curve. You brought it up.

Tbone

Even after being thoroughly embarrassed, you’re still hanging on? Run along now, child.

guest

BTW, there has only been one year in the past 20 where the cost increased by anything close to 10%. The new credits have to be paid by someone so you are talking monopoly money if you want to subtract that from the amount being spent on healthcare.

Seriously you didn’t blow any holes in my argument. You didn’t understand what the quote said or what I said.

Tbone

So provide the link then, so we can all see how you’re lying.

johnrpack

I oppose it now, and I opposed it when it was Romney’s idea. Both parties are crippling our nation.

toohip

Thank you for that “independent voter” thought! You agree that health care should only be for those who can “afford” it and that the decisions of one’s health care should be left to insurance companies who are driven by profit?

johnrpack

I agree with letting people buy what they want with their resources.

However, that includes customers buying directly from insurance companies — and removing the employer middle-man. Then the customers will get the best product they can for the price. Until then, insurance is designed to get employers what they want — the smallest cost possible combined with fooling the most employees possible into thinking they’ve got good covereage.

PackCare would be simple — all employers are required, as of January 1st, 2014, to divide the money spent in 2013 on all benefits equally among all employees as a salary increase. No benefits may be offered at any time in the future. Simultaneously, 100% of individual health, dental, and insurance costs become tax deductible. Furthermore, all regulations requiring insurance purchase or requiring the insurance cover certain types of health care would be repealed.

I guarantee the customers would be better off — because they’d buy the policy they wanted rather than the one mandated by the government. More importantly, however, customers would be free to join groups offering coverage based on things that distinguish them from “average.” I could get the non-smoker, non-drinker, exercises 30 minutes per day, monogamous policy. On the other hand, I could not get the slim-n-trim policy — but I’d have a huge motivation ($$$) to get there quickly. I’d get the policy that didn’t cover AIDS, STDs, mental health options. Others would want those… To each his own. Let each person pay for their lifestyle choices — and let insurance encourage proper choices.

Just image what would happen if the government allowed insurance companies to issue non-cell phone auto policies: No coverage if you were on a cell phone when you got in an accident. The policies would be cheaper, and we’d all be safer because no one would want to void the policy they chose to pay for. The same would work for health insurance.

The possibilities are almost endless if the government would stop forcing insurance companies to sell you your grandfather’s policy.

peterpi

The employer benefits part of your PackCare sounds very much like a proposal Mike Rosen once made. But he saw it as an issue of employee fairness.

toohip

“We” didn’t name it Obama care. . you ilk did, and now that’s it’s starting to get a true spotlight of truth, and it’s working. . . I’ll be you’ll stop calling it that a year from now!

You don’t see that kicking your kids off your ins. policy while they still live at home while going to college or looking for a job is a good thing? That 23 more Americans can now get health care? You agree that health insurance companies can drop or cancel members for getting sick? • Help 23 million more Americans get health insurance.

• Keep insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, or from dropping coverage when people get sick.

• Guarantee basic benefits for everyone on Medicare, and make preventive services free for most.

• Give new benefits to most people with insurance, such as coverage for their adult children to age 26.

• Leave medical decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors.

• Offer tax credits to help small businesses buy insurance for their employees.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...